[Vo]:Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)
internets provides: http://vimeo.com/10476453 We built a wind powered vehicle designed to go *directly* downwind - faster than the wind. This is the first run of our first outing. We intended these first attempts only as shakeout runs. But we ended up doing better than our ultimate goal of twice windspeed. As a result, we've now set our goal at 3X windspeed. This is the first run of the two days we spent on the lakebed in Ivanpah, NV. We've blanked out the audion in places since it wouldn't be responsible to publish numbers that aren't official. We plan to make a well instrumented official run before the officials of the North American Land Sailing Association soon. Once that data has been certified we will publish all data. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHsXcHoJu-A Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)
[Vo]:Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW) (continued)
also: http://www.fasterthanthewind.org/ internets provides: http://vimeo.com/10476453 We built a wind powered vehicle designed to go *directly* downwind - faster than the wind. This is the first run of our first outing. We intended these first attempts only as shakeout runs. But we ended up doing better than our ultimate goal of twice windspeed. As a result, we've now set our goal at 3X windspeed. This is the first run of the two days we spent on the lakebed in Ivanpah, NV. We've blanked out the audion in places since it wouldn't be responsible to publish numbers that aren't official. We plan to make a well instrumented official run before the officials of the North American Land Sailing Association soon. Once that data has been certified we will publish all data. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHsXcHoJu-A Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)
Re: [Vo]:Bugs and Bombs
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it was Curtis LeMay who favored dropping the second bomb because he felt it was important to get field experience with implosion bombs. He was a charming fellow. I guess that's the kind of person it takes to win wars, regrettably. If LeMay had his way, ill Kim Jong-il would be nil. T
Re: [Vo]:Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)
I do not see how this can work! They are going with the wind, so if they start to travel at the same speed as the wind, the propeller should stop turning. Maybe I am missing something. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)
well, their own speed would let the prop spin as drag, but it would have to slow down eventually. On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I do not see how this can work! They are going with the wind, so if they start to travel at the same speed as the wind, the propeller should stop turning. Maybe I am missing something. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)
Wouldn't you know - they even have a url http://www.fasterthanthewind.org/ -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell I do not see how this can work! They are going with the wind, so if they start to travel at the same speed as the wind, the propeller should stop turning. Maybe I am missing something. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)
I am guessing that the propeller propels a belt/chain which is geared into the wheels. Lawry On Sep 21, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I do not see how this can work! They are going with the wind, so if they start to travel at the same speed as the wind, the propeller should stop turning. Maybe I am missing something. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:26:47 -0400, you wrote: I do not see how this can work! They are going with the wind, so if they start to travel at the same speed as the wind, the propeller should stop turning. Maybe I am missing something. - Jed --- Notice from the pitch of the propeller and its rotation that it's turning in the wrong direction if it's being driven like a turbine. As I understand it, what's happening is that the drag from the prop (and everything else at the rear of the vehicle) is being used to push the vehicle forward and turn the wheels, and the wheels are geared to the prop in a way to make it turn backwards. So, while the wheels are causing the prop to spin until the vehicle achieves wind speed, after that it'll be heading into the wind, the prop will start acting like a turbine, and the torque developed will be used to turn the wheels and make the vehicle run upwind, --- JF
Re: [Vo]:Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)
On 9/22/2010 1:26 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I do not see how this can work! They are going with the wind, so if they start to travel at the same speed as the wind, the propeller should stop turning. Maybe I am missing something. Yes what an interesting puzzle! But knowing that it can be done and armed with the clues that the device has wheels and a propeller - it doesn't take very long to figure out how it could be done. Consider the fact that it takes almost no energy to travel at the same speed with the wind, and also consider that since you have access to both the air (via the propeller) and the ground (via the wheels), and since these things are in motion with respect to each other (the wind), it must be possible to extract energy from that differential motion and use it to drive the device faster than the wind. The only question is how! Now suppose the wheels have a circumference of say 1 meter and suppose we set the pitch of the propeller so that it also has a screw pitch of 1 meter per revolution and then suppose we connect these two things together with a 1:1 drive shaft arrangement. Now we have the situation that no matter what speed the device moves at *in still air*, the propeller slices perfectly edgewise through the air and produces no thrust or drag force via the propeller or wheels. Now supposing we cut the shaft and interpose an electrical generator in the shaft so that its stator is linked to the wheels and its rotor is linked to the propeller. Now we have built a windmill generator that works identically regardless of its motion along the ground! If there is no wind then no matter what speed it rolls at with respect to the air, no power is produced or consumed by the generator. But supposing there is some wind - then again no matter what speed it rolls at with respect to the wind - the wind produces the same differential motion between the stator and armature and thus exactly the same power whether it is moving or stationary! So this is the type of device we are looking for. It can roll along at the same speed as the wind - consuming almost negligible energy in air friction (because it is not moving relative to the air) and only a minute amount of energy in wheel and shaft bearing friction (thanks to modern bearings etc) - and all the time it can be generating exactly the same power as if it was locked to the ground with the wind driving the generator via the propeller in the normal manner. Clearly this power is available to be used to drive the device faster than the minimal friction situation of rolling at the same speed as the wind. The only remaining question is the actual detail of how this available power can be most efficiently applied to the wheels. My guess is that you don't bother with a generator but simply have a variable ratio gear box between the propeller and wheels. Or simplest of all have a variable pitch propeller!
Re: [Vo]:Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)
Quite baffling. I love the amount of conjecture this tiny little transportation device has spontaneously generated within the Vort Collective. Nice to see that the Vort juices haven't completely atrophied. Creative conjecture of this sort seems to have been kind of sparse lately! ;-) I still remain skeptical of the claims, but would enjoy being proven wrong. This device reminds me of a gyro-copter, albeit a grounded gyro-copter. I wonder if similar laws of physics are involved. At present there are inadequate controls, IMHO. I wish they had a similar device outfitted with traditional sales akin to a Viking ship running alongside the one with the ingenious prop design. Would be nice to make speed comparisons as they throw spears at each other. Yeah, that's it... A lack of adequate controls. That's what's bugging me. More controls please! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)
I think we can think of this in terms of three phases: 1. Start from a dead stop 2. Acceleration to a speed superior to that of the wind 3. Post acceleration performance 1. I am guessing that the contraption just starts moving forward because of the push of the wind on its vertical surface, e.g. prop, structure, passenger cockpit, etc. No wind = no movement Note how slowly the thing starts to move. 2. As the wind increases the speed of the prop, it transmits more power via a belt/chain to the wheels, probably via a fixed gearing, but it could be variable The wind keeps pushing the thing until its speed equals that of the wind. When the speed exceeds that of the wind, the thing faces a drag. I am going to guess that the thing moves faster than the speed of the wind for a (short) while due to the mass/kinetics/momentum of the prop, which continue after reaching wind speed/vehicle speed equilibrium and so impart some energy to the wheels to exceed wind speed. 3. But how long can this excess speed be maintained? The clip shows the vehicle slowing pretty quickly after it exceeds the wind speed. This is attributed to the brakes in the clip, but perhaps it is no more than drop in the mass/kinetics/momentum of the prop that occurs when the wind is no longer maintaining its speed-increasing motion. Assuming the thing works as advertised, I suppose the vehicle could move downwind with an oscillating speed, dropping to the point where the prop begins to supply positive drive, and then re-accelerating to the point where wind speed is no longer sufficient to do so. Of course, we are making one critical assumption: that the vehicle is actually moving straight down-wind, rather than at an angle to it. (Think of a gyrocopter, mounted vertically, with the wind providing the forward thrust.) Interestingand impressive to a sailor like me who has often cursed down-wind speeds. Lawry On Sep 21, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Lawrence de Bivort wrote: I am guessing that the propeller propels a belt/chain which is geared into the wheels. Lawry On Sep 21, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I do not see how this can work! They are going with the wind, so if they start to travel at the same speed as the wind, the propeller should stop turning. Maybe I am missing something. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)
Ah yes, it is the old mystery of capturing apparent wind. Apparent wind is the wind that you make yourself i.e. you feel on your face as you move forward such as on a bicycle. True wind is the wind that is blowing naturally. There is a long-forgotten way it could be done today, with huge OU implications, you know: capturing the very wind you make yourself g ... for those who do not appreciate a little humor, stop here. http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/04/07/propeller-drives-novel-bicycle/ Hey, had this guy not caved into the expert scientists of the day, those that said he could not capture some of his own apparent wind, we might all be riding wind-cycles today :) Maybe the Russians are using the technique on the this helicopter, which seems to be getting a massive amount of lift with almost no blade speed ... cough, cough. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgvuQGY946g Seriously vorticians, if you pedal into the wind on a bicycle, your leg torque overcomes both kinds of wind drag. The proper comparison is between torque and drag. Same with the torque from the wheels of a land sailor. Never mind that some of the torque comes from the wind you make yourself even though, above the speed of true wind there is additional drag. At least between 1x and 3x true wind, it appears there is no net drag (vs torque extracted) in a good design. Jones
RE: [Vo]:melting polar ice
Jack says: Counter-theory othe than 'Nuclear'// a la' very-long-term natural warming/counter-ice-age warming with 'notable human assist.' Aside from all other fossil fuel usage ref: One 747 leaving LA-X uses more oxygen on 'take-off alone' than every personal gasoline powered vehicle in the entire Los Angeles Metropoliton area burns in an entire week. The daily Air-Traffic-Grid usage graph/map literally 'blackens the skys'(on paper) every single day world wide. Case in point: In commercial conventional aircraft oxygen consumption the upper atomosphere takes the 'heavy-depletion-hit' which obviously is daily thinning the upper-atmospheric rate 'hugely.' And it logically follows that if upper-atmospheric lack of oxygen atoms allows 'far-less' ultra-violet O2 atom strikes then much less resulting O3 oxygen will be created to buffer said ultra-violet radiation and subsequently a profound 'ex-tra' than cyclic warming trend-acceleration is the logical result. A counterd-offset of global warming is that we tend to prevent yearly rather huge(otherwise natural lightening ignited) forest burnoff by modern efforts at fire-prevention, retardation, fire-fighting. In the 'pre-man' past yearly continental burn-offs were business-as-usual. And now they are not. This tends to offset/negate the coal-power vehicle fossil fuel issue. The 'Nuclear' issue is not particularly implicit relatively to promoting-allowing the aforementioned solar/ultra-violet radiation accelerated penetration of the atmosphere which by-far is the central mankind/assisted global warming issue. However; the issue of massive daily fossil-fuel drinking/burning modern conventional global air-transportation jet-aircraft is the 'elephant in the dining room' that we seem to conveniently to ignore. And because of this voluntary denial we tend to give much more credence to the more 'exotic/pop' global-warming theories than they merit. Bottom line: Non fossil fuel Advanced Propulsion technologies for military(already reality) more specifically for commericial applications are crucial to our global 'carbon footprint problem' and need to be unveiled publically immediately. Black-project prohibitions have prevented such as Boeing, BAE, Lockheed-Martin, Northrup-Grumman from forwarding the building of massive commerical fleets of Advanced Propulsion Airliners being constructed. These designs have already been R D'd and will be produced immediately when Black-Ops prohibitions have been removed. Probably the U.S. will have to see wingless-quiet-superspeed Russian Airliners(or maybe French) be unveiled at the next global 'air-show' before the finally get the 'message.' More's the pity when we should be leading the World; but maybe that was simply the dream of yester-year and the U.S. is sliding sadley into it's 'post-World-Power' twilight. The other 'elephant in the dining room' is that this very same 'Advanced Propulsion Technology' would obviate all other types global power-grid powerplants including Nuclear, Coal, etc. which would take care of the Kr85 problem as well, long term. But even so; methinks that even without the mankind's help we are naturally trending to a cycle of non-ice-cap Earth which will likely gyro-stabilize the planet and ultimately trend to at least a co-cycle were the seasonal-axial wobble is stabilized/canceled. Of course this will be planetarily traumatic/coastlines-etc.; and an advanced virtually limitless energy Power-Access-Technology would be very helpful methinks to our being able to 'adapt' to the likely coming extreme alterations/transition-tauma that Space-Ship-Terra is due to be experiencing. Not becoming extinct as a species would be desirable, I think; but that's just me . . . Jack Harbach O'Sullivan Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:43:12 + From: tj...@centurytel.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:melting polar ice Hi All, 9-20-10 I curious what you think of the enclosed below. Jack Smith Leroy Ellenberger c.le...@rocketmail.com wrote on 9-20-10: ``Subject: [velikov] The Mechanics of Catastrophe: Greenland Antarctica There is little doubt that the polar ice is melting. There is however, considerable room for debate about why. The conventional view that the whole earth is getting warmer because of a supposed greenhouse effect from a build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere from combustion of fossil fuels is not really supported by the evidence. Neither is the usual dismissal of the warming trend as only another stage in a long-term natural cycle caused by variation in the output of solar energy. The warming of the poles is clearly of human origin, but is also clearly NOT caused by any greenhouse effect from burning of coal and oil. What I think it is, is the widespread use of nuclear power. The reprocessing of nuclear reactor fuel rods releases a
Re: [Vo]:Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Maybe the Russians are using the technique on the this helicopter, which seems to be getting a massive amount of lift with almost no blade speed ... cough, cough. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgvuQGY946g Personally, I liked the twin rotor vid that popped up on the suggestions column: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQKyxw8Sa9MNR=1 T
